Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the four members of the board of Horse Racing Ireland, HRI, for explaining their positions to the joint committee. I agree with them on the value of the horse racing industry to the country and the importance of the work carried out by HRI. I have no doubt that they would want to be somewhere else other than here today. However, there are significant questions to which we require answers.

Since the regulations on the appointment of chief executive officers to semi-State boards were introduced by the Government, a third extension was granted to the term of appointment of the chief executive officer of HRI who has been in place since 2001. There are questions about the thoroughness of how the Government approached this unprecedented appointment. There are also serious questions about the role of HRI which were not completely answered in the presentations.

Mr. Keeling accepted that things could have been done better and that there was no intention on his behalf to mislead the Minister or the Government. In his letter requesting a third extension of the term of appointment to the Secretary General of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on 16 December 2014 he stated:

Given his unique qualifications for the post, the positions he holds in international racing bodies and the value of his experience and expertise in the coming years, the board wishes to confirm Brian as chief executive officer and, I am, therefore, seeking consent to conclude a further contract.

This letter is presenting it as the board wished to confirm Mr. Kavanagh as the chief executive officer. Will Mr. Keeling elaborate on this? When we asked the Minister last week about this, he indicated that it was his view that it was the wishes of the board which were being expressed. Mr. Keeling outlined in his opening statement that it was his own view that it would be in the best interests of HRI.

Certainly, it was presented at the outset as the board's view. As such, I ask Mr. Keeling to elaborate on why that approach was taken and whether it would have been misleading in terms of the message being given to the Government.

A second extension of term was given to the CEO in 2009. Was it clear at that stage and did the Government clearly impose a requirement on HRI in giving that second extension that there should be no further or third extension and that should be the end of it in terms of any further extension? If that was the case, surely it was very remiss of the board and, in fact, a dereliction on the part of Horse Racing Ireland to fail to plan for that and to fully discuss at the board how that eventuality could be planned for.

There are questions about the handing down of the mandate which the previous chairman received from the board to Mr. Keeling on taking up the position. I would like clarification as to Mr. Keeling's exact understanding of the mandate and of what was asked of his predecessor. Did Mr. Keeling feel there was an onus on him as chairman to bring these matters to the board and to have them discussed? Why did he not do that? The following is something for the four board members to address. Were questions ever raised over the last three to five years at board level as to what the plan was for when the current CEO's contract extension would run out? If so, were the issues addressed? On the request the board made for a third extension, the case has been outlined as to the experience of the incumbent CEO, but were there other contractual considerations which were informing its view also? If so, can the board elaborate on them?

Dr. Osborne indicated that when she was on the remuneration committee she was given the opportunity to review two legal opinions which had been prepared previously on the legal complexities surrounding the CEO's contractual history. She said she was happy that a third opinion would not change these matters. Can she elaborate on those because it is a very distinct matter from the experience and credentials of the CEO in that it deals with contractual issues which seem to be very much at the heart of the considerations of the remuneration committee to the extent that two legal opinions were received? Dr. Osborne also indicated in her presentation that she first became aware that there was a process under way on the reappointment of the CEO when she was asked to attend a meeting of the appointments and remuneration committee on 14 April. Who asked her to attend that committee meeting? Was she appointed to it by the board? It does not say that certainly, but she says she was asked and has outlined that she had concerns following on from that in that she was one of two people on the board and was there because she was asked to be. Mr. Powell referred to the issue of a breach of Government guidelines and a failure of corporate governance and indicated that as the reason he opposed it. The contractual issues seem to run through the presentations as being very much to the forefront of considerations. Certainly, we need further clarification on that.

Did the chairman, Mr. Keeling, at any stage inform either the Minister or civil servants that he was scoping out the potential for a third reappointment and that it had not been discussed by the board? Was the Department made aware that it had not been discussed by the board and that he was scoping out its reaction and whether it would approve it or was the Department working on the basis, as far as Mr. Keeling was concerned, that he was engaging with it with full board approval and authority to seek this unprecedented third extension?